DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on February 4th, 2026. Claims 3-5, 9, 13, and 14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed February 4th, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4th, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejection of claim 9 as put forth on pages 4 and 5 of Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues claim 9 “Goldman-Shenhar…there is no mention of displaying a digital fuel gauge in the middle of a dashboard display so it is not hidden by the steering wheel. Dynamically changing the location of the fuel gauge display based on detected viewing direction is a significant improvement over the prior art because the middle area of the display based on detected viewing direction may change depending on the height of the driver or the position of the vehicle seat” (from remarks pg. 4-5)
As to point (a), Examiner partially agrees. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments, examiner agrees that the prior art previously applied overcomes the amendment. This newly added limitation is not taught by Goldman-Shenhar nor Mohan. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-9120379 (hereinafter, “Wunsche”).
Regarding further arguments provided for the rejection of claim 9 as put forth on page 5 of Applicant’s remarks, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues claim 9 “the Office Action admits that Goldman-Shenhar does not teach the limitation of ‘displaying a range of the vehicle at the current speed and a range of the vehicle at a reduced speed at the middle of the electro-optical display’ and cites Mohan for this feature…Mohan does not teach this limitation because Mohan teaches that the information is displayed on a separate personal digital assistant (PDA), not on the dashboard itself…claim 9 is amended to state that the display device is located in a dashboard of a vehicle” from remarks pg. 5).
As to point (b), examiner partially disagrees. While Mohan does not disclose displaying information onto the middle of the electro-optical display on the dashboard, it does disclose the importance of displaying this information. Goldman-Shenhar nor Mohan teach displaying the information on the middle of the dashboard display. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-9120379 (hereinafter, “Wunsche”).
Regarding further arguments provide for the rejection of claim 9 as put forth on page 5 and 6 of applicant’s remarks, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues claim 9 “the combination of Goldman-Shenhar and Mohan fails to teach the claim limitation of “at the middle area of the electro-optical display” and in fact, teaches away from the method of claim 9…displaying the fuel gauge at a middle area of the display in the dashboard is not an obvious design choice. Further, the Examiner’s assertion of ‘design choice’ is improper because the claimed limitation is not an arbitrary aesthetic but a technical solution to a problem in the prior art” (remarks. Pg. 5-6).
As to point (c), Examiner partially disagrees. Applicant argues that Mohan teaches away from the prior art since it discloses displaying the information on the PDA rather than on a vehicle display. Examiner disagrees that this teaches away from Goldman-Shenhar, Mohan teaches away from the traditional mechanical instruments due to the gauges being fixed and unable/difficult to retrofit, this does not apply to Goldman-Shenhar since it teaches an adaptive electro-optical display. Mohan is merely relied upon for the importance of including the vehicle ranges with the various vehicle information being provided by the driver. It would have been one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electro optical display of Goldman-Shenhar to additionally include the range information of Mohan. As to the location of the information see point (a).
As to applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 5 as put forth on pages 6 and 7 of applicant’s remarks, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Chen does not provide the teachings missing from Goldman-Shenhar and Mohan. Goldman-Shenhar, Mohan, and Chen, considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the method of claim 9, which is thus allowable. Dependent claims 3-5 and 13-14 are allowable due to their dependence on claim” (remarks pg. 6-7).
As to point (d) see points (a-c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9, 3, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20160116977 (hereinafter, “Goldman-Shenhar”) in view of US-9120379 (hereinafter, “Wunsche”) and US-20190061779 (hereinafter, “Mohan”).
Regarding claim 9 Goldman-Shenhar discloses a method for displaying information (see at least [Abstract]; “Systems and methods for a vehicle including an eye tracking device. The systems and methods use input from the eye tracking device. The systems and methods are configured to communicate with a driver based on input from the eye tracking device”) on a display device in a dashboard of a vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0046]; “the display 60 is positioned in a dashboard 80 of the vehicle 10 behind the steering wheel”) while being driven by a driver (see at least [0087-0088]; “Alternatively or additionally, at the block 420, the processor 100 displays the information 68 only if sensor data 422 is below the threshold 424. Here, the threshold 424 represents operation of a vehicle system 20 below which (or above which) a driver can receive the information 68 without substantially distracting or disturbing the driver. For example, the threshold 424 may be a speed, an amount of traffic, a time to next driving direction, etc.,” information is able to be displayed while driving as long as the threshold is not exceeded), the display device having an electro-optical display (see at least fig. 2; and [0042]; “the display 60 is a visual output. For example, the display can be a two-dimensional output or a three-dimensional output. Two-dimensional output includes an electronic output on a screen or a projection onto a surface. Three-dimensional outputs include holographic projections”),
displaying a multiplicity of different items of information by the electro-optical display device so that the multiplicity of different items of information are perceived by the driver of the vehicle (see at least fig. 2; and [0047]; “In certain embodiments, the indicators 70 represent a state or condition of the vehicle systems 20 or environment 50. Commonly, indicators 70 include gauges such as a speedometer, tachometer, odometer, and fuel gauge. Other indicators 70 include a gearshift position, a seat belt warning light, a parking-brake-engagement warning light, and an engine malfunction light, low fuel, low oil pressure, low tire pressure, and faults in the airbag (SRS) system,” the indicators on the display correspond to the multiple different items of information), at least one item including a representation of an analog fuel gauge (see at least fig. 2; and [0047]; “In certain embodiments, the indicators 70 represent a state or condition of the vehicle systems 20 or environment 50. Commonly, indicators 70 include gauges such as a speedometer, tachometer, odometer, and fuel gauge);
detecting a viewing direction of eyes of the driver (see at least [0050]; “the vehicle 10 further includes a gaze detection device 90 that is configured to output gaze location data 92 reflecting a gaze location 94 over time. For example, the gaze location 92 is the location of a gaze of a driver on the display”) as looking at the analog fuel gauge (see at least [0075]; “If the gaze location data includes a gaze location 94 in an indicator area 76 of the fuel level indicator 70, the driver has noticed the fuel level”),
Goldman-Shenhar does not disclose displaying a digital fuel gauge at a middle area of the electro-optical display so it is not hidden by a steering wheel of the vehicle based on the detected viewing direction; and
displaying a range of the vehicle at the current speed and a range of the vehicle at a reduced speed at the middle of the electro-optical display.
Wunsche, in the same field of endeavor, teaches displaying a digital fuel gauge at a middle area of the electro-optical display so it is not hidden by a steering wheel of the vehicle based on the detected viewing direction (see at least [Col. 5, lines 5-27]; “Referring to FIG. 7, a method for adaptive instrument display using eye tracking 100 is illustrated. At 104, method 100 collects raw eye movement data from at least one camera 78. At 108, method 100 uses the data to determine the location of the occupant's 62 eyes in the vehicle 10. At 112, method 100 uses the eye location to determine the line of sight of the occupant 62. At 116, method 100 collects steering wheel 18 location data from at least one steering wheel sensor 74. At 120, method 100 uses the line of sight and steering wheel location to determine the portion 26a of the instrument cluster 26 obscured by the steering wheel 18. At 124, method 100 determines the primary or critical gauges. At 128, method 100 determines whether the obstructed portion 26a is less than the predetermined threshold. If false, method 100 relocates the critical gauges to non-obscured areas on the instrument cluster and, if necessary, removes non-critical gauges at 132. If true at 128, method 100 determines whether the obstructed portion is in a location where resizing is available at 136. If false, method 100 relocates the critical gauges to non-obscured areas on the instrument cluster”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the display system of Goldman-Shenhar with the adaptive fuel location of Wunsche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of censuring critical information is not obstructed from the driver (see at least Wunsche; [Col. 5, lines 5-27]).
Mohan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches displaying a range of the vehicle at the current speed and a range of the vehicle at a reduced speed at the middle of the electro-optical display (see at least Fig. 5B and [0070]; “The display module 309 is coupled with the speed and fuel measuring module 305, mileage and distance estimation module 306 and GPS data processing module 307. The display module 309 is used to display speed, mileage, gear, distance to empty, time to reach, no. of fuel stations on the way before vehicle fuel go empty, over speed fine in as illustrated in the FIG. 5B, Route options with time and fuel saving/loss comparison as illustrated in the FIG. 6B, a method to display speed, fuel efficiency and gear with/without a needle/indicator to indicate instantaneous parameters as illustrated in FIG. 4c, FIG. 4d, FIG. 4e and FIG. 4f are all displays the information to the user using the display module 309 which is in communication with other module to receive the information for display,” while Mohan does not explicitly disclose displaying at the middle of the electro-optical display, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the location of the current and reduced speed ranges to be located in the middle of the display, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the display system of Goldman-Shenhar as modified by Wunsche with the vehicle ranges of Mohan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of comparing information about fuel consumption at different speeds and select the best suited speed (see at least Mohan; [0018]).
Regarding claim 3 Goldman-Shenhar in view of Wunsche and Mohan renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Goldman-Shenhar discloses the display device further comprising a second electro-optical display, wherein additional information is displayed on the second electro-optical display (see at least [0046]; “Referring to FIG. 1, for purposes of teaching, the display 60 is positioned in a dashboard 80 of the vehicle 10 behind the steering wheel 82. In some embodiments, a display includes one or more screens, projections, and the like. For example, a display 60 can include a first display 60 behind the steering wheel 82, a second display 60 (e.g., a HUD) projected onto the windshield 84 of the vehicle 10, and a third display 60 in the center of the dashboard 80 (e.g., center console 86). Although a display can include physically separate components, the components can be treated as a single display. Otherwise, the components can operate as individual displays or different displays can be formed from different components”).
Regarding claim 13 Goldman-Shenhar in view of Wunsche and Mohan renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Goldman-Shenhar discloses wherein the electro-optical display is connected to a voice output unit (see at least [0041]; “The computing device 40 is further configured to communicate with a driver via a vehicle user-interface such as the displays 60, an audio (e.g., speaker/microphone) system 88”).
Regarding claim 14 Goldman-Shenhar in view of Wunsche and Mohan renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Goldman-Shenhar discloses wherein a voice message is generated and output when a specific gaze gesture by the driver is detected (see at least [0133]; “At a block 910, the processor 100 analyzes gaze location data 942 (e.g., horizontal x-axis is time) to monitor a gaze location 94 of a driver. If the gaze location 94 is at the location associated with a vehicle system 20 for a time 944 that is greater than a threshold time 946, at a block 920, a gaze is registered and, at a block 930, the processor 100 communicates the information 68 visually on the display 60 and/or audibly through the audio system 88 of the vehicle 10.”).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman-Shenhar in view of Wunsche and Mohan, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of US-20190100145 (hereinafter, “Chen”).
Regarding claim 4 Goldman-Shenhar in view of Wunsche and Mohan renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Goldman-Shenhar does not disclose wherein the second electro-optical display is arranged on an A-pillar of the vehicle.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second electro-optical display is arranged on an A-pillar of the vehicle (see at least [0024]; “Referring to FIG. 7 together, the plurality of display modules 40 may be specifically a display screen and be electrically connected to the image retrieval module 30. The display modules 40 are respectively disposed on the vehicle body pillars 3.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the display system of Goldman-Shenhar as modified by Wunsche and Mohan with the A-pillar display of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of being able to see the blind-spot and thereby improving driving safety (see at least Chen; [0006]).
Regarding claim 5 Goldman-Shenhar in view of Wunsche, Mohan, and Chen renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the environment behind the A-pillar of the vehicle is displayed on the second electro-optical display (see at least [0024]; “Each display module 40 receives and displays a partial three-dimensional blind spot image I.sub.D of a corresponding vehicle body pillar 3. For example, a display module 40 located at an A-pillar of the vehicle 2 receives and displays a partial three-dimensional blind spot image I.sub.D blocked by the A-pillar, to enable a driver to observe an outside view blocked by the A-pillar that is. That is, an effect similar to that the driver sees through the A-pillar can be achieved, thereby further meeting the position of the line of sight of a driver when the driver drives a vehicle and improving the driving safety”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the display system of Goldman-Shenhar as modified by Wunsche and Mohan with the A-pillar display of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of being able to see the blind-spot and thereby improving driving safety (see at least Chen; [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-9469195 teaches an adaptive, automatically-reconfigurable, vehicle instrument display method and system. The widgets on the dashboard are capable of being moved based on detection of an obstruction.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/24/26